万能書見台のホームページへようこそ（新版）
書見台への熱い想い！
The fact that clone is protected is extremely dubious - as is the fact that the clone method is not declared in the Cloneable interface.
It makes the method pretty useless for taking copies of data because you cannot say:
if(a instanceof Cloneable) {
copy = ((Cloneable) a).clone();
}
I think that the design of Cloneable is now largely regarded as a mistake (citation below). I would normally want to be able to make implementations of an interface Cloneable but not necessarily make the interface Cloneable (similar to the use of Serializable). This cannot be done without reflection:
ISomething i = …
if (i instanceof Cloneable) {
//DAMN! I Need to know about ISomethingImpl! Unless…
copy = (ISomething) i.getClass().getMethod(“clone”).invoke(i);
}
Citation From Josh Bloch’s Effective Java:
“The Cloneable interface was intended as a mixin interface for objects to advertise that they permit cloning. Unfortunately it fails to serve this purpose … This is a highly atypical use of interfaces and not one to be emulated … In order for implementing the interface to have any effect on a class, it and all of its superclasses must obey a fairly complex, unenforceable and largely undocumented protocol”
copy = ((Cloneable) a).clone();
}
if (i instanceof Cloneable) {
//DAMN! I Need to know about ISomethingImpl! Unless…
copy = (ISomething) i.getClass().getMethod(“clone”).invoke(i);
}
“The Cloneable interface was intended as a mixin interface for objects to advertise that they permit cloning. Unfortunately it fails to serve this purpose … This is a highly atypical use of interfaces and not one to be emulated … In order for implementing the interface to have any effect on a class, it and all of its superclasses must obey a fairly complex, unenforceable and largely undocumented protocol”
oop - Why is the clone() method protected in java.lang.Object? - Stack Overflow
asada's memorandum: ゴッホの本当のすごさを知った日
1 month ago - 
1919
1919 